DR. BALBIR SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DELHI AND ORS.

A for like reasons,. be determinable under the provisions of sub-section ,/- .... (l)(A) (2) (b) of Section 6 if they have not been actually let out any ' ···vi time since their construction. But if these two categories of premises have been actually let out at some point of time in the past, then in the case of former category, the annual rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant when the premises were first actually B let out shall be deemed to be the standard rent for a period of five years from the date of such letting out and in the case of the latter category, the annual rent calculated with reference to the rent at which the premises were actually let for the month of March 1958 or if they were not so let, with .refererence to the rent at which they c were last actually let out shall be deemed to be the standard rent for a period of seven years from the date of completion of the construction of the premises. However, even in the case of these two categories of premises, the standard rent after the expiration of the period of five years or seven years as the case may be, would be determinable on. the principles set out in sub-section (I) (A) (2) (b) D of Section 6. Thu.s in the case of self-occupied residential premises, the standard rent determinable under the provisions of sub-section (2) (a) or (2) (b) of Section 6 in cases falling within the scope and ambit of those provisions and in other cases, the standard rent determinable under the provisions of sub-section (i) IA) (2) (b) of Section 6 would constitute the upper limit of the rateable value of the premises. Similarly, on an analogous process of reasoning, the standard rent determinable under the provisions of sub-section (2) (a) or (2) (b) of Section 6 in cases falling within the scope and ambit of those previsions and in other cases, the standard rent determinable under the provisions of sub.section (!)(BJ (2J(b) of Section 6 would constitute the upper limit of the rateable value so far as self-occupied non-residential premises are concerned. The rateable value of the premises, whether residential or non-residential cannot exceed the standard rent, but, as already pointed out above, it may in a given 'case be less than the standard rent. The ann.ial rent which the owner of the premises may reasonably expect to get if the premises are let out would depend on the size, situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities provided therein and all these and other ·relevant factors would have to be evaluated in determining the rateable value, keeping in mind the upper limit fixed by the standard rent. If this basic principle is borne in mind, it would avoid wide disparity between the rateable value of similar premises situate in the same locality, where some premises are old. premises constructed many years ago when. the ff land pric~s w~re not high and th' colt uf coa;truction h1d not

BALBIR SINGH v. M.C.D. (Bhagwati, J,) 465

escalated and others are recently constructed premises when the prices of land have gone up almost 40 to 50 times and the cost of construct ion has gone up almost 3 to 5 times in the last 20 years. The standard rent of the former category of premises on the princi- ples set out in sub-section (I) (A) (2) (b) or Cl) (B) (2) (bl of Section 6 would be comparatively low, while in C3se of latter cate- gory of premises, the standard rent determinable on these principles would be unduly high. If the standard rent were to be the measure of rateable value, there would be huge disparity between the rateable value of old premises and recently constructed premises, though they may be similar and situate in the same or adjoining locality. That would be wholly illogical and irrational. Therefore, what is c r required to be considered for determining rateable value in case of recently constructed premises is as to what is the rent which the • ..... owner might reasonably expect to get if the premises are let out and that is bound to be influenced by the rent which is obtainable for similar premises constructed earlier and situate in the same or adjoin- ing locality and which would necessarily be !i11Jited by the standard rent of such premises. The position in regard to the determination of rateable value of self-occupied residential and non-residential premises may thus be stated as follows : The standard rent deter- minable on the principles set out in sub-section (2) (a) or <2) (b) or • (I) (Al (2) (b) or (I) (BJ (2) (b) of Section f, as may be applicable, would fix the upper limit of the rateable value of the premises and within such upper limit, the assessing authorities would have to determine as to what is the rent which the owner may reasonably expect tu get if the premises are let to a hypothetical tenant and for the purpose of such determination, the assessing authorities would bave to evaluate factors such as size, situation, locality and condition of the premises and the amenities therein provided. The assessing p authorities would also have to take into account the rent which the own,ar of similar premises constructed earlier and situate in the same • or adjoining locality, might reasonably expect to receive from a hypothetical tenant and which would necessarily be within the upper limit of the standard rent of snch premises, so that there is no wide disparity between the rate of rent per squar foot or square yard G which the owner might reasonably expect to get in case of the two premises. Some disparit) is bound to be there on account of the > size, situation, locality and condition of the premises and the ameni- ties provided therein. Bigger size beyond a certain optimum would depress the rate of rent and so also would less favourable situation or locality or lower quality of construction or unsatisfactory condi- tion of the premises or absenc~ of nec~ssary amenities and similar u

466 ' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 2 s.c.R. A other factors. B,ut after taking into account these varying factors, the disparity should not be disproportionately large. We may also point out that until 1981 the assessing authorities were giving a self occupa1icy rebate of 20% in the property tax assessed on self- occupied residential premises. We would suggest that, in all fair- ness, this rob.ate of 20% may be res11mcd by the assessing autho- n rities, because there is a vital distinction, from the point of view of the owner, between self-occupied premises and tenanted premises and the right to shelter under a roof being a basic necessity of every human bemg, residentiafpremises which are self-occupied must be treated on a more favourable basis then tenanted premises, so far as the assessability to property tax is concerned. c . . We may now turn to consider the second category of premises in regard to which the rateable value is required to be determined. This category comprises premises which are partly self-occupied and partly tenanted. No;v, as we have pointed out above, it is the pre- mises as a whole which are liable to be assessed to property tax and not different parts of the premi>es as distinct and separate units. But while assessing tb.e rateable value of the premises on the basis of the rent which the owner may reasonably expect to get if tb.e premises are let out, it cannot be over-looked that where the premises consist of different parts which are intended to be occupied as distinct and separate units, the hypothetical tenancy which would have to be considered would be the hypothotic:t\ tenancy of each part as a distinct and separate unit of occupation ?.nd the sum total of the rent reasonably expected from a hypothetical tenant in respect of ·each distinct and 'Separate unit would ropr .'sent the rateable value of the premises. Now obviously the rent which the owner of the premises may reasonably expect, to receive in respect of each distinct and separate unit cannot obviously exceed the standard rent of such unit and tho assessing authorities would therefore have to determine the standard rent with a view to fixing the upper limit of the rent which can reasonably be expected by the owner on letting out such unit to a hypothetical tenant. How is this to be done ?

Where the case falls within sub-section (2) (a) or (2) (bl of G Section 6, no problem arises, because whether the distinct and ' separate unit of which the standard rent is to be determined is self- occupied or tenanted makes no difference, for in either case, the standard rent would be governed by one or the other. of these two provisions. So also in cases falling outside sub-section (2) (a) and (2) (h) of Section 6, it would make no difference whether the distinct

BALBIR SINGH v. M.C.D. (Bhagwatl, J.) 467

and separate unit of which the standard rent is to be determined is self-occupied or ten anted ; for in either case, the standard rent woul~ be determinable under the provisions of sub-section ([)(A) (21 (b) or (•)(Bl t2) lb) of Section 6. But the question is, how is the formula set out in sub-section (!)(Al (2' (bl or (I) <Bl (2) (b) of Section 6 to he app1'ed '! Obvt0usly thero would be no difficulty in applying the formula, if the premises of which the standard rent is to be d :tcnnii1cd consist of the entire building. Then the rea'°nablc cost of consttuc<ion of the building can be taken and it can be aggregated with the market price of the land comprised in . the building on the date •1f commencement of construction of the b 'ilding and 7} per cent of such aggregate am:Junt would represent the standard rent of the bu'lding. But where the building consists of more than one distinct and separate units and the standard rent to be determined is that of any particular unit, the formula may present some diflicultv of application if it is sought to be appl'ed literally in J rdation to that particular un't alone and by itself, because even if 'x the reasonable cost of construction of that paiticular unit can be ascertained, it would not be possibl' to determine "the market price D of the land comprised in the premises on the date of the commence- ment of construction" since the entire building and n0t merely that particular unit would be standing on the land aad the land on which the building is standing would be land comprised in the building and it would be irrational and absurd to speak of it as land com- E prised in that particuhr unit The formula can, however, be applied for determining the standMJ rent of a particular unit by computing the standard rent of the bu IJ iug ; in accordance with the formula and then apport'oning th·' standard rent so computed amongst the different units of occupation comprised in the building on the basis of floor ar.;a, taking into cqnsideration differences, if any, on account F' of the situ'<tion and cond'tion of the various units and the amenities provided in such units. This would be the most rational way in which the market price of ~he hnd comprised in the building on the dat-.~ of commencement of construction can be spread over amongst • the different units of occupation comprised in the building. It wonld therefore seem that when the rateable value of a building eonsisting G of distinct and sep3rate units of occupation is to be assessed, the standard rent of each unit would have to be determined on the principks set out above and within the upper limit fixed by the standard rent. the a.ssessin.~! ;1 ulliorities would have to determine the rent which the owner may reasonably expect to get if such unit were let out to a hypothetical te11ant and in arriving at this determination, the assessing authorities would have to take into account the same H

46S SUPREME COVllT REPORTS (1985] 2 s.c.11.

A factors which we have already discussed in the preceeding paragraphs of this judgment while dealing with the question of assessment of self-occupied properties. The sum total of the rent which the owner may reasonably expect to get from a hypothetical tenant in respect of each distinct and separate unit of occupation calculated in the manner aforesaid, would represent the rateable value of the building. We B may point out that this formula for determination of rateable value would apply, irrespective of whether any of the distinct and separate units of occupation comprised in the building are self-occupied or ,. tenanted. The only difference in case of a distinct and separate unit of occupation which is tenanted would be that, subject to the upper c limit of the standard rent, the actual rent received by the owner ' would furnish a fairly reliable measure of the rent which the owner may reasonably expect to receive from a hypothetical tenant, unless it can be shown that the actual rent so received is influenced by 'extra-commercial considerations.

That takes us to the third category of premises where the land D on which the premises are constructed is lease-hold land with a restriction that the leasehold interest shall not be transferable without the approval of the lessor. There are two classes of cases which fall within this category. The first is where premises have been cons- F tructedby the owner on land taken on lease directly from the E Government and the second is where premises have been constructed by the owners on land taken on sub-lease from a Cooperative House Building Society which has in its turn taken a lease from the Government. The lease in the first class of cases is a lease in per- petuity and so also are the lease and a sub lease in the second class of cases. We are concerned in these writ petitions and appeals with F the second class of cases and we shall, therefore, confine our obser- vatiom to that class. The sub-lease in this class of cases is executed by the Cooperative House Building Society in favour of each of its members in respect of the plot of land sub-leased to him. One of the clauses in the sub-lease, the standard· form of which is to be found in clause 6 of the document of sub-lease in Transferred Case No. 75/82, inter alia provides as under : • G (6) (a) The Sub-Lease shall not sell, transfer assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the residential plot in any form or manner, benami or otherwise, to a person who ts not a member .of the Lessee. H (b) The Sub-Lessee shall not sell, transfer, assign or ,,

BALBIR SINGH v. M.C.D. (Bhagwati, J.) 469

otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any A part of the residential plot to any other member of the Lessee except with the previous consent in writing of the Lessor which he shall be entitled to refuse in his absolute discretion. B Provided that in the event of the consent being given, the Lessor may impose such terms and con- ditions as he thinks fit and the Lessor shall be entitled to claim and recover a portion of the unearned increase in the value (i.e. the difference between the premium paid and the market value) of the residential plot at c the time of sale, transfer, assignment, or parting with the possession, the amount to be recovered being fifty per cent of the unearned increase and the decision of ) ' " the Lessor in respect of the value shall be final and binding. D Provided further that the Lessor shall have the pre-emptive right to purchase the property after deducting fifty per cent of the unearned increase as aforesaid. E • It is obvious that by reason of thls clause in the sub-lease, the owner who has constructed premises on the plot of land sub-leased to him, cannot sell, transfer or assign his lease-hold interest in the plot of land to any except a member of the Cooperative House Building Society and even so far as sale, transfer or assignment to a member of the Cooperative House Building Society is concerned, F 1t cannot be made except with the previous consent in writing of the Government which the Government may give or refuse in its absolute discretion, and in case the Government chooses to give its consent, the Government would be entitled to claim 50% of the unearned increase in the value of the land at the time of such sale, transfer or assignment and moreover, if the Government so desires, G it would have a pre-emptive right to purchase the plot of fand after deducting 50 per cent of the unearned increase in the value of the plot of land. This covenant in the sub-lease is clearly a covenant running with the land and even where sale, transfer or assignment of the plot of land has taken place with the previous consent in writing of the Government, thi< covenant would continue to bind the purchaser, transferee or assignee, vide Commissioner of Wealth ff

470 SUPREME COURT.REPORTS (1985) 2 s.c.R.

A !Tax v. P.N. Sikand(1).

Relying on this clause in the sub-lease, the Delhi Municipal ... . Corporation contended that since .the plot of land on which the premises stands, cannot be transferred without the previous consent of the Government, it has no market value and its market price B cannot be ascertaiued and hence the standard rent of the premises cannot be determined on the principles set out in sub-sections (I) (A) (2) (b) or (I) (B) (21 (b) of Section 6 and consequently, the residuary provision in sub-section (4) of Section 9 would apply and the standard rent would have to be fixed in accordance with the principles laid down in that provision. This was in fact the ground c on which. the assessing authorities rejected the objections filed by several owners of premises contending that the standard rent of their premises should be determined on the prfociples set out in sub- sections (I) (Al (2) (b) or (I) (Bl <2) (b) of Section 6. To quote only cine of the orders made by the asses1ing authority in case of peti- tioner No. 2 in T.C. No. 75/82 it was said in the order rejecting the objections of that petitioner :

"The property is built upon a lease hold plot. This . being so it is not feasible to determine the market price Pf land at the time of start of construction because under the terms and conditions of the conveyance deed, the land is not open for sale in the open market. As such I am not in a position to apply S. 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for fixing the standard rent. I have, therefore, to resort to S. 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for fixing the standard rent." F This argument which seems to have prevailed with the assessing authorities in rejecting the applicability of Sub-Section(!) (A\ (2) (b) or (!) (Bi 2 (b) of S. 6 and resorting to the provisions of Sub Section (4) of S. 9 is wholly unfounded. Merely because the plot of land on which the premises are constructed cannot be sold, transferred or assigned except to a .:nember of the Cooperative House Building G Society and without the prior consent of the Government, it does not necessarily mean that there can be no market price for the plot of land. It is not as if there is total prohibition on the sale, transfer or assignment of the plot of land, so that in no conceivable circum- stance, it can be sold, transferred or assigned. The plot of land can

H 0) (1977) 2 s.c.c. 798.

BALBIR SINGH v. M.c.o. <Bhas:watl, J.) 471

:, ' ; 11 d, transferred or assigned but only to oue from amongst a limited class of persons, namely, those who are members of the Cooperative House Building Society and subject to the Rules and Regulations, any eligible person can be admitted to the membership of the Cooperative House Building Society. There is also a further restriction, namely that the sale, transfer or assignment can take

·- place only with the prior consent of the Government. But subject to th~se restrictions, the sale, tran\)fer or assigniuent can take place. It cannot, therefore, be said that the market price of the plot of land " ·'

cannot be ascertained. When we have to determine what would be the market pcice 0f the plot of land on the date of commencemei1t of construction of the premises, we must procce,J on the hypothesis that the prior consent of the Government has been given and the c plot of land is available for sale, tr.tttsfor or assignment and on that footing, ascerta:n what price it would fetch on such sale, transfer or assignment. Of course:, when the chs,; of potential buyers, transferees or assignees is restricted, the market price would tend to be depressed. But even so, it can be ascertained and it would not be correct to say D that it is incapable of determination. There is also one other factor which would go to depress the market price and that stems from the clause in the sub·lease which provides that on sale, transfer or assign- ment of the plot of land, the Government shall be entitled to claim 50% of the unearned increment in the value of the plot of land and the Government shall also be entitled to purchase the plot of land at the price realisable in the market after deducting there- E from 50% of the uitearned increment. Since the lease hold interest of the sub-lease in the plot of land is cut down by this burden or restriction. the market price of the plot of land cannot be determined as if the leasehold interest were free from chis burden or rcstric. ti on This burden or limitation attaching to the leasehold interest must be taken into account in arriving at the market price of the plot of land, because any member of the Cooperative House Build- F ing Society who takes the plot of land by way of sale, transfer or a>signment would be bound by this burden or restriction which runs with the land arid that would necessarily have the effect of depres- sing the market price which he would be inclined to pay for the plot of land. We must, therefore, discount the value of this burden or G restriction in order to arrive at a proper determination of the market ' price of the plot of land and the only way in which this can be done is by taking the market price of the plot of land as if it were tmaffe- cted by this burden or restriction and deducting from it, 50% of the unearned increase in the value of the plot of land on the basis of the hypothetical sale, as representing the value of such burden or H

472 SUPRBME COURT REPORTS [1985] 2 s.c.R.

restriction. This mode of determination of the market price has the sanction of the decision of this Court in P. N. Sikand's case ! supra). We do not,therefore, think that the asseising authorities were right in taking the view that because the plot of land could not be sold, transferred or assigned except to a member of the Cooperative House Building Society and without the prior consent of the Govern- 8 ment, its market price was unascertainable and hence the standard rent of the premises could not be determined under sub-section (!) {A) (2) {b) or(!) (B) (2) (bl of S. 6 and had to be assessed· only under Sub-s. ( 4) of S. 9. We are firmly of the view that the market price of ~he plot of land at the date of commencement of construc- tion of the premises was ascertainable on the basis of the formula c we have indicated, notwithstanding the restriction on transferability contained in the sub·lease and the standard rent of the premises constructed on the plot of land was doterminable under the provi- ·~

sions of sub-section (!) (AJ (21 (bl or 'll IB) (2) (b) of Section 6. The argument of the Delhi Municipal Corporation that in all such cases resort has to be made to the provisions of sub-section (4) of D Section 9 for determination of the standard rent of the premises must be rejected.

We may also in this connection refer to the statement made by the \finister of State for Home Affairs on the floor of the Lok Sabha on 8th April 1981 where the Minister observed: E ' "The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has intimated ' that 494 general objections for the year 1980-81 filed by the assessees for the revision of assessment of their properties in accordance with Supreme Court Judgment were consi- . dered by the Corporation. The requests for reassessment on F the basis of standard rent under Section o of the Rent Control Act, 1958, were considered and not found accept- able to the Corporation as the assessees failed to produce documentary evidence as regards the aggregate amount of the reasonable cost of con;truction and the market price of the land comprised in the premises on the date of com- mencement of the construction as provided under Section 6 G (2)(b) ·Of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Accordingly, assessments were made as provided uuder section 9 of the , Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The details of the proper- ties, locality-wise, are given in the statement attached."

It is i.ndeed strange that the assessing authorities should have B' declined to assess the rateable value of 494 properties in South

BALBIR SINGH v. M.C.D. ( Bhagwatl, J.) 473 Delhi on the basis of standard rent determinable on the principles . ,. laid down in sub-section (1) (A) (2) (b) or (ll (Bl (2) <b) of Section 6, merely on the ground that in the opinion of the assessing autho- A

rities ''the assessees failed to produce the documentary evidence as regards the aggregate amount of reasonable cost of construction and the market price of land comprised in the premises on the date of conimencement of the construction." If the assessees failed to B produce the· documentary evidenc~ t•"> ·~stablish the reasonabli;; cost of construction of the premises or the market prico of the land comprised in the premises, th~ assessing authorities could arrive at their own estimate of these two constituent items in the applicatic>n of the principles set out in sub-section (!) (Al (2J (b) or {() (BJ (2) 'bl of Section 6. But on this account, the assessing authorities could c not justify res,,rt to sub-section (4l of Section 9. It is only where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on lhe principles set-forth in Section 6 that the stan- dard rent may be fixed under sub-section (4J of Section 9 and merely because the owner does not produce satisfactory evidence showing what was the reasonable cost of construction of the premises or the market price of rhe land at the date of commencement of the const- ruction, it cannot be said that ;t is not possible to determine the standard rent on the principles set out in sub-sectio'1 ([) (Al (2) (b) or (!) (Bl (2) lb) of Section 6. Take for example a case where the ... owner produces evidence which is found to be incorrect or which docs not appear to be satisfactory; Can the assessing authorities in such a case resort to sub-section( 4) of Section 9 stating that it is not possible to determine the standard r'nt on the prmciples set out in sub-section (l) (A) (2) (b) or (I) (BJ (2> (b) of Section 6. The assessing authorities would obviously have to estim1te for them- selves, on the basis of such material as may be gathered by them, the reasonable cost of construction and the market price of the land and arrive at their own determination of the standard rent. This is an exercise with which the assessing authorities are quite familiar and it is not something unusual for them or beyond their compe- tence and capability. It may be noted that even while fixing stan- • dard rent under sub-section (4) of Section (9), the assessing autho- rities have to rely on such material as may be available with them and determine the standard rent on the basis of such material by a process estimation.

The fourth category of premises we must deal with is the category where the premises are construded in stages. The discussion in the preceding paragraph f this Judgment provides an answer to H

474 SUPRJlMll COURT REP OR TS [1985] 2 s.c.R.

" A- the question as to how the rateable value of this category of pre- mises is to be determined when the premises at the first stage of construction arc to be assessed for rateable value, the assessing authorities would first have to determine the standard rent of the premises under sub.section (2) (a) or 2 (b) or (I) CA) (2) (b) or (!) (B\ (2) (bl of Section 6 as may ·be applicable and keeping in mind B the upper limit fixed by the standad rent and taking into account the various factors discussed above, th" assessing authorities would have to deiermine the rent which the owner of the premises may reasonably expect to got if the premises are let out to a hypothetical tenant and such rent would represent the rateable value of the premises. When any addition is made to the premises at a rnb- c_ sequent stage, three different situations may arise. Firstly, the addition may not be of a distinct and separate unit of occupation but may be merely by way of extension of the existing prem~ses which are self-occupied In such a case the original premises together with the additional structure would have to be treated as a D single unit for the purpose of assessment and its rateable value would have to be determined on the basis· of the rent which the owner may reasonably expect to get, if the premises as a whole are let out, subject to the upper limit of the standard rent determinable under the provisions of sub-section (J) (A) (2) (b) of Section 6. Secondly, the existing premises before the add di ti on might be tenanted and the addition might be to the tenanted premises so that E the additional structure also_ form part of the same tenancy. Where such is the case, the standard rent would be liable to increase under Section 7 and such increased rent would be the standard rent of the premises as a whole and within the upper limit fixed by such stan- dard rent, the assessing authorities would have to determine the rent which the owner may reasonably expect to get if the premises as a F whole are let out as a single unit to a hypothetical tenant and in . such a case, the actua.1 rent received would be a fair measure of the rent which the owner may reasonably expect to receive from such hypothetical tenant unless it is influenced by extra-commercial considerations. .Lastly, the addition may be of a distinct and sepa- rate unit of occupation and in such a case, the rateable value of the ' G premises would havo to b; determined on the basis of the formula laid down by us for assessingthe rateable value of premises which are partly self-occupied and partly tenanted. The same principles for determining of rateable . value would obviously apply in case of subsequent additions to the existing premises. The basic point to be noted in all these cases is-and _this is_ what we have already H emphasised earlier-that the formula set out in sub-section

. _, BALBIR SINGH v. M.C.D. (Bhagwatl, J.)

(!)(A) (2) <bl and(!) (B) (2l (b) of Section 6 cannot be applied for 415

A determining the standard rent of an addition, as if that addition was the only structure standing on the land The ~ssessing 3uthori- ties cannot determine the standard rent of the additional structure by taking the reasonable cost of construction of the additional structure and add'ng to it the market price of the land and applying B the statutory percentage of 7! to the aggregate amount. The market price of the land cannot be added twice over, once while determining the standard rent of the original structure and again while determin- ing the standard rent of the additional structure. Once the addition is made, the formula set out in sub-section (!)(Al <21 (b) and (!) (B) (2) (bl of section 6 can be applied only in relation to the .. premises as a whole and where the additional structure consists of a distinct and separate unit of eccupation, the standard rent would have to be apportioned in the manner indicated by us in the earlier )l part of this Judgment.

These are the principles on which the rateable value of different categories of properties is liable to be assessed under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957. The same principles would a fortiorari apply also in relation to assessment of rateable value under

• the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Since there are a number of writ petitions and appeals before us and they involve different fact situations we do not think it would be convenient to dispose them c

of finally by one single Judgment. We would therefore direct that these writ petitions and appeals shall be placed on Board on some convenient date so that they can be disposed of in the light of the principles laid down in this Judgment. D

• ML.A .